bdcc
Legend
There was a programme on food additives shown fairly recently in the UK. It is fair to say the angle they were using was "are food additives really that bad?" as nothing they investigated was concluded as unsafe.
I am usually one of the most anti-MSG and anti-aspartame people on the planet. If a preworkout product has aspartame in it, I won't use it- not a single serving.
However, I also believe that to truly know a subject you have to be able to understand both arguments. Writing something off without being able to talk about the other side is not true knowledge of that topic.
The experiment they did was to take two small groups of people who confessed to suffering side effects of either MSG or Aspartame.
Group 1 ate a meal together which was completely free of added Aspartame but high in naturally occurring aspartic acid. Group 2 ate a meal which had no added MSG but was naturally high in glutamic acid.
Every person went home and did a video diary. Every single person reported that they were suffering side effects, ranging from headaches to diarrhoea. All of them said that their meal definitely contained the offending substance.
A client of mine who worked in a chinese restaurant told me Americans tend to be much more clued up to MSG and request meals which specifically do not contain it.
How many of the side effects reported (Aspartame is the highest complained about additive) are consequential from being aware of it i.e., if there was no media source of Aspartame, would as many people find offending foods? How many side effects are from the naturally occurring equivalent rather than the chemical additive?
Conclusion- whatever you want it to be. Sometimes it is nice to have another piece of the puzzle just to help you make up your own mind. For me this is food for thought. I hope some of you find this interesting.
I am usually one of the most anti-MSG and anti-aspartame people on the planet. If a preworkout product has aspartame in it, I won't use it- not a single serving.
However, I also believe that to truly know a subject you have to be able to understand both arguments. Writing something off without being able to talk about the other side is not true knowledge of that topic.
The experiment they did was to take two small groups of people who confessed to suffering side effects of either MSG or Aspartame.
Group 1 ate a meal together which was completely free of added Aspartame but high in naturally occurring aspartic acid. Group 2 ate a meal which had no added MSG but was naturally high in glutamic acid.
Every person went home and did a video diary. Every single person reported that they were suffering side effects, ranging from headaches to diarrhoea. All of them said that their meal definitely contained the offending substance.
A client of mine who worked in a chinese restaurant told me Americans tend to be much more clued up to MSG and request meals which specifically do not contain it.
How many of the side effects reported (Aspartame is the highest complained about additive) are consequential from being aware of it i.e., if there was no media source of Aspartame, would as many people find offending foods? How many side effects are from the naturally occurring equivalent rather than the chemical additive?
Conclusion- whatever you want it to be. Sometimes it is nice to have another piece of the puzzle just to help you make up your own mind. For me this is food for thought. I hope some of you find this interesting.
